The Meaning of Jesus, two visions, by Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright

The Meaning of Jesus, two visions, by Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright

This book is a contrasting of Christian positions by two of the leading scholars N.T Wright on the conservative side and on the liberal side is Marcus J. Borg. Interestingly I would not call either as representatives of the 'Liberal' or 'Conservatives'. Borg represents 'progressive Christianity' which has elements of liberal thought. While N.T. Wright is a bit of a radical within 'evangelical' circles. Never the less both have very contrasting positions which in itself is useful for learning and understanding.
Borg's position calls into doubt traditional Christian orthodoxy, through what he calls pre and post Easter. Post Easter is when the Bible is written. Often by people who had never meet Jesus and often decades after Jesus death.
With the 'Post-Easter' story, Jesus has started to take on a story of its own, which is different from the 'Historical Jesus'. The Post-Easter story now contains myth and is flourished with exaggeration of the true story which happened 'Pre-Easter'. Much discussion occurs about the reliability of biblical sources and the quest for the 'Historical Jesus'. A very important question for all Christians and those interested in Christianity.
Interestingly Borg does not argue with Jesus been the 'Messiah' or any other terms which has been given to him after the 'post-Easter' period. What he writes which is important during the 'Post-Easter' period is that Jesus became and is becoming the 'Messiah'. In other words; was Jesus the Messiah 'Pre-Easter?' No. Was Jesus the Messiah 'Post-Easter?' Yes.
I found Borg's writing on the 'Truth' and of Biblical accuracy of the Biblical text interesting. Much of the argument boiled down to the historical factuality of the Bible. Borg writes:: 'The issue, rather, whether the truth of a gospel story is dependent upon its being grounded in a particular historical event. Tom says "yes" and I say "No". This can pretty much sum up much of the books and its argument.
I think as time goes on Borg's position will become stronger. Time in my opinion does blur things.
I found N.T Wrights contextualisation of the political nature of the times when Jesus was alive, inspiring. Jesus portrayed as a political revolutionary. Wedged between the Roman powers and his Jewish heritage.I can see many modern day examples of this with Australian Jarrod McKenna and American Shane Clayborne.
Overall well worth reading. It helped me sharpen my own thoughts, as well as give me a greater understanding for both liberal and evangelical positions on the Gospels and Jesus.

Missional reflections

Image via Wikipedia

Hamo over in West put up a blog post reflecting on his missional journey now and his thoughts for the future. It is an interesting read

Much of what he has written I can relate to yet, I've changed. I'm not as feverent for new 'converts'.
I suppose mainly it is about my theology. I am more convinced of the coming and living in the Kingdom of God. Not just the emphasis of 'Signs and Wonders' of the Vineyard which was a large part of my life.
I'd rather use the language of 'making disciples'. That working in the theology of the 'Here and Now' means listening and doing what Jesus would do. It can be pretty simple. Caring for God's earth, looking out for those less fortunate than you, a smile to a stranger. Conversing with someone who is avoided by others.  The Vineyard had an emphasis of about 90% on the 'signs and wonders' and a token acknowledgement by the rest. (This is not always the case, Tri Robison's Vineyard church put a huge emphasis on creation care) 
I've a good friends who I would call a follower of Jesus yet an atheist; an oxymoron. Yet through  him I see God's kingdom advancing. He works on refugee camps giving his time generously, he is environmentally conscientious. Strangely he believes Jesus exists and thinks he is the prime example of how Humans should live.
Yet their are things which Evangelical/fundamentalist  tradition doesn't get him over the line. Stuff which is is often (And rightly so) implied in the Bible. Jesus divinity, the atonement etc etc.
I don't care any more, so long as people are advancing the Kingdom. As NT Wright says the 'New earth' is getting closer. (Maybe wrong with this interpretation but that is how I read it.)
The other thing I like about a 'Kingdom' world view is 'mission' happens where we are. Incarnating where we are.

Related articles

• Piracy: Jesus Did It (unreasonablefaith.com)

The Historial Jesus

Image by freestone via Flickr

Some thoughts from "The meaning of Jesus, two visions" by Marcus Borg and NT Wright.

One of the key points of difference between liberal and evangelical scholars is what you can take as 'literal'. There are, like most things degrees or even aspects in which the Bible and related stories can be taken as literal.

Marcus Borg makes the point that we really don't know a lot about Jesus. What we do know of him comes from writing that occurs decades after his death. That the writing where done by his followers after his death. Where in their writing crept connections with the Telmuld and other Jewish literatuere. That during the passing on orally of the stories for decades  the legend of Jesus increases by his followers. You can see this progression chronologically with Mark and the Gospels of Mathew and Luke then John.

For me it makes seems to make scene, I can actually see what he is talking about. Chinese whispers

The other option put forward by NT Wright is that the oral tradition is incredibly accurate. That the gap between Jesus death and the writing of the Gospels is nothing to worry about. Especially in a Jewish context.

Once a story has taken hold of people's minds and imaginations, it is told again and again with minimal alteration.

For me either position can be ok, ultimately a story does not need to be literal for it to contain truth! Even fundamentalists use illustration in their preaching with stories and illustrations (not in the Bible) which may not be literal but bring out the truth of the Bible.
 
Just to let you know I've done a review of the book which can be found on hubpages here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oh Jesus--I don't even know this guy!!!--coming soon (thenowandthenotyet.blogspot.com)
• "Bible scholars agree that the first gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus. Decades...." (contrararian.tumblr.com)

Paranormal healing :: Marcus Borg

 

Currently I'm reading The Meaning of Jesus. Two Visions, by Marcus Borg and Tom Wright.

It is interesting how for a scholar, Borg is usually put in the 'liberal' side of theology. Yet he does not deny the existence of the healing and exorcism. He calls it 'Paranormal healing' and steers well away from the word 'miraculous'.
He uses the word 'Paranormal' for two reasons
1) It is not superatural intervention, the 'miraculaous'. It thus avoids the issue of why God heals some and leave others to suffer.
2) He does not believe it to be 'psychosomatic', (I believe most 'miracles today inside the Church are in this category)

In common with the majority of contemporary Jesus scholars, I see the claim that Jesus performed paranormal healings and exorcisms as history remembered. Indeed, more healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition. He must have been a remarkable healer.

I look forward to how Borg looks at the resurrection...

What Jesus didn't know

In reading "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" by Marcus Borg and NT Wright, I've started to get some clarity regarding the differences in "progressive Christianity" and "Evangelical".

One of the main difference is posed in the question::

Did Jesus think he was the messiah?

Borg believe NT Wrights would belive this::

Jesus thought he was the messiah, and he ws right. Based on what the New Testament itself says, this has been the common Christian position throughout the ages. A considerable body of scholarship also argues this.

While Borg believes::

Whether or not Jesus thought he was the messiah, he is the messiah. That is, his messianic status and the truth of the exalted metaphors do not depend upon whether Jesus thought of himself in those terms. Whether an of them go back to Jesus or not, they are the community's testimony to what Jesus had become in their life together.

What would Jesus do?

I'm currently reading 'The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions' by NT Wright and Marcus Borg. Much of the book explores the idea of the 'quest for the historical Jesus'. It is a hugely important question.  Borg appears to look at the historical data with more of a objective perspective; while Wright relys on 'Faith' on many of his interpretations.

One of the things which I've found helpful is the idea that Borg uses, the 'Pre and Post Easter Jesus'. What was Jesus really like pre-Easter, taking into account all of the written data was post the Easter story, most written a long time after his death.

Keeping this in mind one of the questions which entered my head was what would 'Borg's Jesus' vs 'NT Wrights' make of the crimes done in 'Christ's' name, such as, Slavery, the inquisitions in Spain, anti-semitism. Would Jesus have stopped the Crucifixion? Maybe slipped into the obscurity of history?

I suspect if Jesus had been around at any of these horrific times he would have still been crucified....

The heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg

The heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg,

Some times you will read a Christian book and it just fits with what you need to read. This was one such book for me. One aspect that I wanted to get a bit better grip on was 'liberal' Christinaity, or as Borg would put it 'progressive'. I have for a short while trying to read Bultman and Tilich. But I found them  hard going, to the extent I would just get bogged down in the first couple of pages and just give up. So for the first time I was able to understand what was meant by 'metaphorical' and 'Sacrament'.

For me the book gave important glimps into

: The idea of metaphorical and sacrement

: pluralism of religions

: panthiesm in Christinity

: The different meanings of 'Faith', not necessarily a literal interpretation.

: Salvation and Sin

: The Kingdom of God, mainly in regards to a political social justice and equality.

It is interesting that Borg attends the American equivalent of an Anglican Church. I can now understand how there is such a great divide between the Anglican communion.

I also think that this writing is valuable. Especially for people who come from a evangelical or fundemental background and find a litural understanding as unbelievable. That they find there only option; to throw in Christiantiy all together. This book is truely a way forwards for these people.

I'm looking forward to the getting my hands on his co-authored book with NT Wright, 'The meaning of Jesus'. It will I hope contrast and bring more clarity to evangelical and liberal theology.

NT Wright on Hell

On of my favourite theologians talks on Hell. "What is Hell?, does it even exist? (A lot easier to watch than read his books!)

HT to Out of Ur Blog, Some interesting comments over there!

Messages from NT Wright

Stewart Wesly from Network Vineyard has put up two links to NT Wrights messages. I havn't heard them yet, but plan to soon....

Take some time for a view of the Kingdom of God that may surprise and encourage you…
Resurection and the Future World
http://resources.coths.org/sermons2007/20070317_lecture1.mp3
Resurection and the Task of the Church
http://resources.coths.org/sermons2007/20070317_lecture2.mp3
(Just copy and paste the web address into your browser)